By: mrtotty
- 20th January 2013 at 13:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I seem to remember that the 1979 DC-10 groundings hit Air New Zealand very hard, because the aircraft was the sole long-haul type they had in those days, with the early B747s (300s, I think) still some years away.
By: nJayM
- 21st January 2013 at 19:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The grounding is a sound process in 2013 in comparison to previous eras
The grounding is a sound process in 2013 in comparison to previous eras
Harsh though my words sound it is in Boeing's commercial favour that these 'Gremlins' showed up.
The Yuasa batteries are reported supposedly used in other modern airliners but they may have been off earlier manufacturing lines or simply aren't in similar temperature and humidity conditions as the 787.
We are deep in one of the longest economic recessions in my lifetime and although big giants like Boeing try their best to manage quality of their supplier's products it is a simple trade off equation - "Can you spend the resources (men, equipment, time) in checking each product after the supplier delivers?". NO is the simple answer.
The supply chain for these batteries is probably as long as one desires to imagine and it just takes one supplier in this chain to cut a small corner (save a small amount) and the entire quality issue is wide open.
Let's wait and the result will I am sure be a better and more robust 787 and all customers will benefit from these early warnings.
It just shows that the world has advanced and takes airline safety very seriously as this did not happen in previous eras which resulted in fatalities.
After all is it just Boeing going through serious suppliers woes? Look at Toyota to name just one?
By: MSR777
- 25th January 2013 at 21:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Certainly is bad news. I'm sure this will eventually get sorted, but in the meantime, it must be playing havoc with the publics perception of the aircraft. I wonder how much of an effect there will be on further delivery dates. Qatar, and the other new operators, must be 'thrilled'
By: Ship 741
- 27th January 2013 at 09:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have yet to see any hard evidence linking these problems with outsourcing.
Par example, who built the battery and charging system on the 777? I'll guess that it wasn't Boeing. Also, we know that signficant structural portions of that airplane were sub-contracted.
The Boeing unions seem to have done a marvelous job in convincing a lot of people that there is a link between outsourcing and these latest problems. Hats off to their PR effort, but perhaps they should concentrate their efforts on the factory floor instead of in the press.....after all, if only they wouldn't go on strike so frequently, there wouldn't be that pesky new factory in Charleston.
As for the public, they will fly on the flight with the cheapest fares.
Posts: 569
By: Matt-100 - 19th January 2013 at 22:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It doesn't. ANA has had to cancel numerous flights.
I know QTR 075 is now operated by an A332, I assume United has replaced their services with 767s?
Posts: 1,059
By: mrtotty - 20th January 2013 at 13:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I seem to remember that the 1979 DC-10 groundings hit Air New Zealand very hard, because the aircraft was the sole long-haul type they had in those days, with the early B747s (300s, I think) still some years away.
Posts: 1,684
By: nJayM - 21st January 2013 at 19:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The grounding is a sound process in 2013 in comparison to previous eras
The grounding is a sound process in 2013 in comparison to previous eras
Harsh though my words sound it is in Boeing's commercial favour that these 'Gremlins' showed up.
The Yuasa batteries are reported supposedly used in other modern airliners but they may have been off earlier manufacturing lines or simply aren't in similar temperature and humidity conditions as the 787.
We are deep in one of the longest economic recessions in my lifetime and although big giants like Boeing try their best to manage quality of their supplier's products it is a simple trade off equation - "Can you spend the resources (men, equipment, time) in checking each product after the supplier delivers?". NO is the simple answer.
The supply chain for these batteries is probably as long as one desires to imagine and it just takes one supplier in this chain to cut a small corner (save a small amount) and the entire quality issue is wide open.
Let's wait and the result will I am sure be a better and more robust 787 and all customers will benefit from these early warnings.
It just shows that the world has advanced and takes airline safety very seriously as this did not happen in previous eras which resulted in fatalities.
After all is it just Boeing going through serious suppliers woes? Look at Toyota to name just one?
Maybe it is Yuasa - Yuar.ea:D
Posts: 4
By: Horscht - 24th January 2013 at 17:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This too shall pass.
Posts: 460
By: AirportsEd - 25th January 2013 at 11:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Boeing's Latest Official Comment
http://www.airportsinternational.com/2013/01/boeing-makes-statement-on-us-ntsb-787-investigation/11735
Posts: 10,160
By: Grey Area - 25th January 2013 at 20:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This doesn't look too good.... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/25/boeing_787_ntsb_report/
I'll be surprised if Boeing outsource as many vital systems on their next design to third parties.
Posts: 2,886
By: MSR777 - 25th January 2013 at 21:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Certainly is bad news. I'm sure this will eventually get sorted, but in the meantime, it must be playing havoc with the publics perception of the aircraft. I wonder how much of an effect there will be on further delivery dates. Qatar, and the other new operators, must be 'thrilled'
Posts: 796
By: Ship 741 - 27th January 2013 at 09:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have yet to see any hard evidence linking these problems with outsourcing.
Par example, who built the battery and charging system on the 777? I'll guess that it wasn't Boeing. Also, we know that signficant structural portions of that airplane were sub-contracted.
The Boeing unions seem to have done a marvelous job in convincing a lot of people that there is a link between outsourcing and these latest problems. Hats off to their PR effort, but perhaps they should concentrate their efforts on the factory floor instead of in the press.....after all, if only they wouldn't go on strike so frequently, there wouldn't be that pesky new factory in Charleston.
As for the public, they will fly on the flight with the cheapest fares.
Posts: 2,886
By: MSR777 - 27th January 2013 at 14:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm sure that there will be those within Boeing, hoping that you're right.
Posts: 10,160
By: Grey Area - 27th January 2013 at 14:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Some people will bring politics into anything. :rolleyes:
Posts: 796
By: Ship 741 - 28th January 2013 at 01:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Only speculating on the reason why so many seem to be talking about outsourcing in relation to these incidents.
I can see how the outsourcing may have caused the 3-4 year delay, but not the latest problems.
Posts: 901
By: Mr Merry - 28th January 2013 at 12:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Boeing 787 aircraft battery 'not faulty'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21230940
Posts: 949
By: ThreeSpool - 28th January 2013 at 13:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A bit of good news, ruling out the battery. However, it does mean they haven't found the real cause.
It would be good if it turned out to be a software bug like the Ariane rocket. Pure wild speculation on my part.
Posts: 806
By: KERVYN - 29th January 2013 at 14:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A future version of the Boeing 787...
...to forget all the former problems of the aircraft type ;
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pictures-787-dreamdiner-set-to-grace-la-skies-324579/
what do you think about ?
friendly yours, Etienne
Posts: 949
By: ThreeSpool - 29th January 2013 at 14:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It'll never get off the ground! :D
Posts: 806
By: KERVYN - 1st February 2013 at 19:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You're right, ThreeSpool....
look to the date of the article !! :)
& the most recent B-787 news is ;
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57567061/japan-sending-boeing-787-dreamliner-investigators-to-united-states/
friendly yours,
Etienne
Posts: 306
By: J-31 Burrito - 1st February 2013 at 21:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
since we're on the topic,
why didn't Airbus choose the same engine as the 787 for their new craft
Posts: 569
By: Matt-100 - 1st February 2013 at 21:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I expect Boeing sought exclusivity from GE and RR? Plus I believe there are several Boeing patents regarding the cowling?
Posts: 306
By: J-31 Burrito - 1st February 2013 at 22:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
is the serrated engine exhaust panel on the 787 and 737NG a Boeing patent?
Posts: 806
By: KERVYN - 3rd February 2013 at 16:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just for a Sunday' break
http://img.allvoices.com/thumbs/image/609/609/96048550-787-batteries.jpg